Journal List > Korean J Occup Environ Med > v.24(1) > 1125618

TOOLS
Park, Rhie, Jung, Lee, Won, and Roh: Radiotechnologists and Radiation Exposure from PET and PET/CT Systems
Original Article
Korean Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Korean Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2012; 24(1): 86-95.

Published online: 31 March 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.0000/kjoem.2012.24.1.86

Radiotechnologists and Radiation Exposure from PET and PET/CT Systems

Hoon-Hee Park, Jeongbae Rhie3, Pilkyun Jung1, Jong Doo Lee2, Jong Uk Won3, Jaehoon Roh3

Department of Radiology, Shingu University, Korea.

1Graduate School of Public Health Yonsei University, Korea.

2Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Yonsei University Health System, Korea.

3Department of Preventive Medicine-Institute for Occupational Health, College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Korea.

Corresponding author (jhroh@yuhs.ac)

Received 29 September 2011       Revised 20 February 2012       Accepted 28 February 2012

Copyright © 2012 The Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

In this study, radiotechnologists who work performing PET and PET/CT methodologies were analyzed in order to find the cause for the differences in radiation exposure as they applied to general characteristics, work characteristics, knowledge, and exposure recognition or conduct.

Methods

From April 15th, 2010 to May 14th, 2010, we conducted a retrospective analysis on 80 radiotechnologists using data garnered from their individual general characteristics, work characteristics, knowledge, and exposure recognition or conduct. Their average annual radiation exposure dosages were measured using a thermoluminescence dosimeter. A multiple regression analysis was performed as a statistical tool.

Results

Regarding the general PET and PET/CT characteristics, when the work experience was short, the exposure dose was higher. The factors of age, marriage, work experience in nuclear medicine, PET, PET/CT, and sex were found to have statistically significant effects. The knowledge, recognition, and conduct factors for the radiotechnologists were affected by unsecure radiation exposure at the moment of carrying, unsecure radiation exposure at the moment of injection, the application of protection at the moment of injection, and the use of auto distributor. It was found that, the use of an auto distributor, efforts in reducing the radiation exposure, unsecure exposure when with a patient, and the application of protective procedures at the moment of injection affected the overall factor of radiotechnologists radiation exposure dose.

Conclusions

We believe that if radiotechnologists would reduce their radiation exposure by using auto distributors, make efforts to reduce the chance of exposure, and be conscious of radiation, they would be able to reduce the radiation exposure dose even during unavoidable circumstances.

Keywords: Radiotechnologist, Radiation exposure dose, PET, PET/CT

References

1. Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Physics in nuclear medicine. 2003. 3rd ed. Saunders;325–329.
2. Kim HJ. Current status of imaging physics and instrumentation in nuclear medicine. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008. 42(2):83–87. (Korean).
3. Townsend DW. Multimodality imaging of structure and function. Phys Med Biol. 2008. 53:R1–R39.
4. Lang TF, Hasegawa BH, Liew SC, Brown JK, Blankespoor Sc, Reilly SM, Gingold EL, Cann CE. Description of a prototype emission-transmission CT system. J Nucl Med. 1992. 33(10):1881–1887.
5. Hasegawa BH, Iwata K, Wong KH. Dual- modality imaging of function and physiology. Acad Radiol. 2002. 9:1305–1321.
6. Ruhlmann J, Oehr P, Menzel C, Kley K, Bender H, Grunwald F, Biersack HJ. Fdg-pet in clinical onclogy; Review and evaluation of results of private clinical pet center. Clinical Oncology. 1998. 20(7):168–179.
7. Gambhir SS. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med. 2001. 42:suppl 5. 1S–79S.
8. Kearns WT, Urbanic JJ, Hampton CJ, McMullen KP, Blackstock AW, Stieber VW, Hinson WH. Radiation safety issues with positron-emission/computed tomography simulation for stereotactic body radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2008. 9(3):2763.
9. ICRP Report 60. Recommendation of the international commission on radiological protection. 1990. Pergamon Press.
10. Miller RW. Lowdose radiation exposure. West J Med. 1990. 24(1):1166–1167.
11. Hendee WR. Real and perceived risks of medical radiation exposure. West J Med. 1983. 138(3):380–386.
12. Seierstad T, Stranden E, Bjering K, Evensen M, Holt A, Michalsen HM, Wetteland O. Doses to nuclear technicians in a dedicated PET/CT centre utilisiong 18F fluorodeoxyglucose(FDG). Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2007. 123(2):246–249.
13. Robinson CN, Young JG, Ibbetson VJ. A study of the personl radiation dose received by nuclear medicine technologists working in a dedicated PET center. Health Phys. 2005. 88:2 Suppl. S17–S21.
14. Guillet B, Quentin P, Waultier S, Bourrelly M, Pisano P, Olivier Mundler. Techologist radiation exposure in routine clinical practice with 18F-FDGPET. J Nucl Med Technol. 2005. 33:175–179.
15. Zanzonico P, Dauer L, Germain JS. Health Phys Operational radiation safety PET-CT, SPECT-CT and cyclotron facilities. Health Phys. 2008. 95(5):554–570.
16. Benatar NA, Cronin BF, O'Doherty MJ. Radiation dose rates from patients undergoing PET: implication for technologists and waiting areas. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000. 27(5):583–589.
17. Roberts FO, Gunawardana DH, Pathmaraj K, Wallace A, U PL, Mi T, Berlangieri SU, O'Keefe GJ, Rowe CC, Scott AM. Radiation dose to PET technologists strategies to lower occupational exposure. J Nucl Med Technol. 2005. 33(1):44–47.
TOOLS
Similar articles